Was Quo Primum Ever Abrogated?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I can’t speak for @otjm, but I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that the Ordinary Form in any way teaches or promotes heresy or heterodoxy.

 

[ZoomerVince]

That is exactly what I am trying to get at, thank you.

As it was a matter of discipline and not doctrine, it seems the answer is “no,” especially since various changes have been made to the Extraordinary Form by past popes (prior to Vatican II) without any of them explicitly stating that they were abrogating the missal of Pope Pius V.

What I’m saying though is that changes to the Mass are different from instituting a New Order (Novus Ordo) of the Mass.

 

[ZoomerVince]

I can’t speak for @otjm, but I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that the Ordinary Form in any way teaches or promotes heresy or heterodoxy.

One could simply argue (definitely not me), that the New Mass is simply inferior to the Old Mass because the Old Mass is more reverent and further emphasizes the Real Presence and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What I’m saying though is that changes to the Mass are different from instituting a New Order (Novus Ordo) of the Mass.

Then, once again, the burden of proof is on you to show that Pope St. Paul VI and the bishops in union with him acted against Church teaching by issuing a revised missal of the Roman Mass.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

the New Mass is simply inferior to the Old Mass because the Old Mass is more reverent and further emphasizes the Real Presence and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.

And they would be wrong, so this little section is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

One could simply argue (definitely not me), that the New Mass is simply inferior to the Old Mass because the Old Mass is more reverent and further emphasizes the Real Presence and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.

All arguments that we’ve all heard ad nauseam. The Extraordinary Form is not objectively more reverent - and there are plenty of horror stories out there of priests offering the EF irreverently. And as one who grew up serving the OF daily and actually listening to the prayers, to Real Presence is plenty emphasized in the OF, and the OF puts plenty of emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass (while also including the Old Testament principle that a sacrifice is to be consumed as part of the sacrificial meal).

So, the arguments are strawmen.

 

[ZoomerVince]

Then, once again, the burden of proof is on you to show that Pope St. Paul VI and the bishops in union with him acted against Church teaching by issuing a revised missal of the Roman Mass.

I’m saying it is not a revision of the Roman missal for the aforesaid reasons, it is a new Mass. And I would just point to Quo Primum once again that says, “let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

 

[ZoomerVince]

How are they wrong?

 

[otjm]

It is a New Mass.

It was not called a "New Mass it was called a New Order.

It is the same Mas in its essence; penitential rite, Gloria, non-Gospel Scriptural readings, Gospel, offertory, epeclesis, Consecration, prayers after Consecration, Agnus Dei, reception of Communion, final prayer. And it can be said in the vernacular.

If one were to actually sit down and put the EF along side the OF, the similarities far far outweigh the differences. and many of those differences were items that over the centuries were added in, for whatever reason(s) each Pope making the changes had.

The EF is still available as it was noted fin Summorum Pontificum which was promulgated in 2007. Growth of the availability of the EF has slowed down significantly in the US and amounts to a bit less that 3% of all parishes in the US which are either EF parishes, or have an EF Mass.

Continued attempts by you or anyone else to find a way to say the Church was wrong or made a vast mistake fly in the face of reality. You are most welcome to prefer the EF over the OF; that is a matter of personal spirituality.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How are they wrong?

Don’t see how they’re right. I’ve been to both and don’t find either inherently more reverent.

 

[otjm]

What are you thoughts on the notion that Quo Primum is not dealing with simply Church discipline, since it deals with the Liturgy which is far more important than most other disiplines?

All Church discipline is “simply Church discipline”. The power to bind and loose is neither less nor greater based on what discipline is being changed. You are grasping.

 

[otjm]

the New Mass is simply inferior to the Old Mass because the Old Mass is more reverent and further emphasizes the Real Presence and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass.

That again shows a lack of knowledge of liturgical history and liturgy itself. The EF had emphasis on God Transcendent. The OF brought back a balancing point of God Imminent. God is both transcendent and imminent, and the EF did not provide much emphasis on imminence.

As to reverence: I started as an altar boy in about 1956, and the pastor had a terrible problem with alcohol. I would go in to serve the 6:30 a.m. daily Mass and at times he would appear to either have started drinking before then, or still be under the influence from a previous night. To say those Masses were reverently said is to abuse the term “reverently” beyond any recognition. He could say that Mass in less the 15 minutes.

Reverence is as reverence does. Prior to Vatican 2, a priest might appear very reverent, or they might be a bit pedestrian in their approach.

Those who attend the EF now are attending a Mass said by a priest who wants to say that form of the Mass, and they are very reverent. But it is the fading memories, or the attendance by those who never attended an EF prior to V2 who posit that the EF is “so much more reverent”.

I have seen both the EF and the OF said reverently. Both are the Mass; the fact that the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel are not said in the OF has nothing to do with reverence. Both forms of the Mass can be said with less reverence than they should - the form makes no difference; it is the attitude and actions of the priest that determine that issue.

I have also attended the Maronite Rite Mass; one said by a hermetic priest was slower (and for lack of a better way of saying it, more thoughtfully) than one said by the cuurent priest, who is not hermetic. I would not say he is irreverent in the least. but I preferred the prior pastor.

And the Maronite Rite Mass is every bit as valid as is the Ruthenian Rite Mass (although neither refer to them as Mass, as that is a Latin Rite term) and they are different from each other and both different from either the EF or the OF. And all are valid Masses and fulfil the Sunday obligation.

 

[CilladeRoma]

And one would be wrong.
Every Eucharistic prayer talks of sacrifice and the OF Masses in my parish are very reverent.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And I would just point to Quo Primum once again that says, “let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.”

You were already told multiple times at the beginning of the thread that Quo Primum didn’t bind future Popes.

Please stop rehashing arguments that were already thoroughly debunked.

It doesn’t look like you have a single good argument in support of your point.